To those who have converted earlier cars to 3.0-3.6 power...

[CamB]

I am (naughty me) considering upgrading the '69 to a power output more in keeping with the car (the T motor is getting pretty tired, as well as being poxy to start with). This will involve an upgrade to suitable brakes and suspension, and most likely an upgrade to a 915 'cause what I have read suggests that over 200hp will severely shorten the life of a 901 box. Especially one which has dodgy 2nd synchromesh (the remaining synchros aren't exactly "fresh" either - it has done 150k miles).

Goal is definitely 200+hp, maybe 250. More is ok! Lots of torque would be good. I don't have ANY smog rules to meet. I am not trying to keep myself in any class for competition.

This question is aimed purely at the $$$ paid for outcome gained on the engine part of the equation. I could rebuild the 2.0 for more power (ie to a 2.5 using 90mm P&C) but it is a T and thus has a crappy crank, early magnesium case - the list of problems goes on. I would like opinions on whether upgrading the existing engine is a good idea or not, but assume it isn't. Oh, and it could do with a Bosch dizzy and hydraulic tensioners.

Therefore an engine swap makes sense. I would probably put the T motor somewhere safe with the T struts and brakes etc etc, so I could convert back if I sold it and it was economically better to do it that way. Options therefore include:

1. 204hp SC (Euro model - I live in New Zealand)
2. 231hp Carrera (Euro model)
3. 250hp 3.6 (or the 993 engines for more $$$)
4. Someone elses hot motor (eg I saw a 3.4 with carbs for sale at one point)

I would probably not upgrade the 3.6 (other than mandatory $$$$ exhaust issues when installing). I would be tempted to upgrade the 3.2 (at least the exhaust - unfortunately I couldn't use the exhaust on the T as it is on its last legs). I would probably HAVE to upgrade the SC engine as it barely meets my (arbitrary) target, but that could be done over time if and when $$$$ permitted.

Obviously if I spent less on the engine (eg 3.0 or 3.2) that leaves more $$$ to upgrade (eg throttle body fuel injection and cams).

In terms of stuff I have seen on this Board, I like the looks of the engines on:

- Jack O's car, Black Beauty
- Randy W's car
- RLJ's car, Iris
- Rattlsnak's car
- Matt Holcomb's car
- Jack McAlister's car (I have the carbs )

Some of these would probably be outside my budget (eg, I suspect buying an SC engine then doing what RLJ did would be an expensive route for me, or Matt H's engine). But I might look at a reduced version...

The second question relates to the "why didn't I think of that" questions. Eg, I know the installation kit for the 3.6 is $$$$, or that I need a high pressure fuel pump for the injected engines. What sort of problems am I likely to run into?????? Ahhh crap, just thought of oil cooler - I would need that!

Thanks!

------------------
Cameron Baudinet
1975 911S (in bits)
1969 911T

[This message has been edited by CamB (edited 10-22-2001).]

[psychotron]

You will run into more problems than you can think of right now.

Fuel pump, oil tank, oil cooler, tranny, tach, speedo, shift tower, axles, brakes etc,etc,etc.

I put a dual plug MFI 3.5 in a 1970 911T. but it's all worth it when i'm going down the onramp in third.

WARP SPEED MR. SULU!

[This message has been edited by psychotron (edited 10-22-2001).]

[Jack Olsen]

Most people recommend what they've done for themselves, but I think the 3.2 is the most sensible engine upgrade for the early cars. Randy Jones, Mike Marshall, Randy Wells (and others I'm forgetting) have all put Carrera engines in early cars with great results, and I believe it requires substantially less modification than for the 3.6 motor.

My mindset when I started my project was simply: "What's the biggest normally aspirated engine I can put in there? A 3.6? Fine. That's it. Let's do it."

Do I regret the decision? Absolutely not. But balancing cost and rewards wasn't a factor for me. If I were on a meaningful budget, I think the 3.2 would definitely be the way to go. Just get the donor powerplant checked as thoroughly as possible.

------------------
Jack Olsen
My Rennlist page • My Pelican Gallery page • My Porsche Owners Gallery page

[CamB]

Jack, I have to say I am a bit concerned over the costs for the 3.6 installation kit and over your well-documented cooling issues.

But I very much understand the "biggest that will fit" argument! The "stock" 250hp is a pretty attractive carrot.

Cam

[firecall999]

Hi cam,

Have you thought how you are going to get the power down? Youre gonna need bigger wheels and then that leads to flared arches etc...

Why dont you just rebuild the '75 with the bits you want?

This is something I have been thinking about. But I also need to buy the car, so for me its: what car do I get and then what do I do to it.

At the moment Im leaning towards 3.2 in an early T. Mainly based on cost. But I also fancy doing some sprints or racing, so I guess I'll have to check the regs and see what class I'd be in and build from there. A bit like Randy's car. although I dont have that kind of money to spend.

Alex.

[CamB]

Alex

The '75 is currently at the "some assembly required" stage. It came back from the panel shop, freshly painted, in January and I haven't put it back together. It runs well on a fairly recently rebuilt (on the PO's dollar) engine. It will (unusually for a '75) be fairly original.

On the other hand the T was a race car for a year, has average (new by the PO) paint and interior, and I have no qualms about bastardising it to the hilt.

It doesn't have flared arches. I will use sticky 205/50R16s on it on 6 or 7 inch wheels until I have serious traction problems, then will revisit the need for flared arches... call me stupid if you like.

BAsically I want a 911R on steroids. I figure (much as you obviously do) that it would be a very very fun car and a fun project (although the amount of work I have been doing suggests I may have to pay someone to do the engine swap for me )

------------------
Cameron Baudinet
1975 911S (in bits)
1969 911T

[This message has been edited by CamB (edited 10-22-2001).]

[Early_S_Man]

Cam,

Rather than a 'package' engine ... how about a composite of some of your existing components, i.e., exhaust and Webers, put onto an SC block and bottom end, add 98 mm or 100 mm 'take off' cylinders with new 9.5:1 pistons with serious valve reliefs for a set of SC RS cams or GE-80's. Topped-off with 'sport' valve springs and Titanium retainers for a 'safe-zone' redline of 8000, but a realistic, usable redline between 7500-7800. Couple that high-revving engine to a 915 with 7:31 ring & pinion, and 'Donohue' gearing for a realistic top-end of 120 mph at redline ... with breath-taking acceleration through the gears to match or beat a 3.3 Turbo at any rpm in any gear! Match that power with 8 x 16 and 9 x 16 Fuchs wearing 225's and 245's under SC flares ...and I think you have something better than an original 911R!
------------------
Warren Hall
1973 911S Targa
1992 Dodge Dakota 5.2 4X4 parts hauler

[This message has been edited by Early_S_Man (edited 10-23-2001).]

[rstoll]

http://www.pca.org/mart/classifieds.pl?db=parts&website=&language=&session_key=3bd55b540bf417ae&search_and_display_db_button=on&results_format=long&db_id=186&query=retrieval

------------------
Robert Stoll
83 SC
83 944

[89911]

Warren is right and I'll give you a personal experience. I got to drive the track (Watkin's Glen, a "horsepower" track) with my instructer who has his and her's early 911 that are "tracked out" (Coilovers, striped interiors, plastic windows, headers, big brakes, fiberglass bumpers, ect,ect,ect...) His car weighed less then 2100 lbs and had a 3.6 engine. This guy is a great experienced driver and drives hard, real hard. On the session we ran, he was catching every car within eyesight and putting them behind him. Only two cars came up on him, a track prepared brand new Z06 Corvette and an early 911 Rs clone. The guy could not keep up with the earlier car. After the session, I checked the car out. It had much of the work that Warren spoke of, but nothing really extreme. Something about those earlier cars engines that just rev quicker and sooner, especially when matched with the right gear box. His car was very powerful, but it was a slower, torquier power then a screaming quick reving power. A lethal combination.

------------------
8 9 9 1 1, The last of the line.

[Oldporsche]

I would go with Warren's suggestion. That combination will run with the "stock motors" you are suggesting to use. It can be accomplished with far less complication$ than the use of the latter motors. That is unless you are going to make "hot rod" motors out of those. In which case you need cubic $$$$$$.

You will have less money in Warren's suggestion plus an immediately saleable motor&transmission combination.

Good luck,
David Duffield

[Randy W]

Warren makes alot of sense - maybe we will hear from Randy Jones about just such an engine. The short stroke 3.2L with Webers and mods is a very torquey engine, is easily mated to an early 915 with 7:31, and is not a huge investment. Probably the only disadvantage is the carbs' (even the new PMO's) tendency to sputter under sustained or high G transitions. The stock 3.2L motronic swap is much more straightforward than the 3.6L. However, even considering the Euro 3.2's 230HP, the 3.6 will give you a huge increase in low and mid-range grunt over the 3.2 that the comparable HP numbers do not reveal. This realization and the fact that there are no rules to consider, makes the choice even more difficult.

It's a tough one, Cameron. The best bang for the buck is probably a good leak down, low mileage Euro 3.2L, ready to go with the exhaust, tach, motronic box, un-cut harness, fuel pump and oil cooler with lines, mated to an early 915 ('72-'74). You will still have some mods to do with the oil and fuel lines, electricals, engine tin etc, but the swap has been documented plenty. You can later upgrade the chip and exhaust to get some more mid-range grunt and add flares/wheels/tires to keep it on the road. We can all dream of having a car like Carl's 2.9 MFI narrow bodied tangerine 911R Gruppe beauty seen at last years R Gruppe gathering or one the slide valve cars, but you'll be plenty happy with a 3.2L in an early 911 (for awhile anyway .

Randy Wells

[MMARSH]

CamB

From a money standpoint I think Randy's 3.2 suggestion is the best. I'm not sure what parts that you already have but Randy Jones's motor is not inexpensive. Also although a 3.6 would be nice, after you pay for the motor, all the parts for the conversion and oil cooling issues you will have spent a good deal of money on that as well. But then again, there is no substitute for cubic inches.(except maybe lighter weight)

I recently finished installing a Euro 3.2 in my 72 RS Clone. It already had a 3.0 in it and I sold that for a grand less then the 3.2. The 3.2 is an easy install, there are basically 4 wires to hook up,change the fuel pump,deal with your cooling issues if you dont already have an exterior cooler and notch the tranny case for the sensors on the back of the motor. I'm also running headers and a chip. At the end of the year I will install a complete twin plug set-up and fiberglass front fenders that I have sitting on the shelf.

As it sits now, the car with a full roll cage,lightweight interior and a working sunroof (heavy but I kinda like it) weights 2256. Beleive me, with the 7:31 R&P and about 231+ hp it is very quick. For 50+ hp it cost me about $1100. I am somewhat constrained by class rules with my car, but if I was building a street car I would be tempted to go with the 3.6. the car would be heavier, but the WOW facter of just having a 3.6 is kinda cool. I'm just not totally convinced it's worth the extra hassle though. I've driven two 3.6 early cars and they are fast but they were also heavier, so the power to weight was probably about the same.

Including myself, I have two other buddies that have 3.2's in their early cars, if you decide to go that route feel free to contact me with any questions, I'm sure we can help you out.

Michael Marshall

I'd go with Warren's suggestion only because it would be so nice to clean off the bench, crank on the tunes and build such a beast with so many nice parts. BTW, what "unfair advantage" does "Donahue gearing" refer to? Really close ratios?

[rboylan]

Cam,

I'm in the process of putting in a '79 3.3 Turbo motor in my '70 E, it sounds mismatched but the car has already been flared and updated so it wasn't so illogical.

Be prepared to be "hundred dollared" to death. There are many seemingly minor areas which are going to give you fiscal pains. Most important is whichever motor you choose, make sure it's solid and as represented. This whole thing is going to cost enough without having to do motor repair as well. My tranny of choice, '83 915 LSD, nice fit in the early car. I'll let you know how it progresses. Good luck with it.

Rich

[Early_S_Man]

Rob,

No, the 'hill climb' and 'airport' gearsets were avilable long before Mark Donohue tested the complete 911/912 series cars in 1969 for Car and Driver ... the concept of being able to use the full rpm range, or more practical gearing for the 911E and 911S ... to give away a bit of unusable top-end for better performance in 4th and 5th gears, for the street! It wasn't a specific set of gears as mucn as a concept for the street, not for racing. In a sense, it would be very close to the 'airport gears' ... with the flexibility to be either slightly higher or lower in 5th gear, depending on which engine and the available rpm range.

I started using the 'Donohue' designation years ago in his honor when talking to people about making gear changes to 901/914/915 transaxles.

------------------
Warren Hall
1973 911S Targa
1992 Dodge Dakota 5.2 4X4 parts hauler

Warren,

I remember over a year ago reading one of your posts about changing gearing to improve street performance. Since then it has always been on my "must do" list for the several dream projects I have floating in my head.

I hope when I'm finished travelling I'll have the chance to apply this idea to a real project (911?!).

Thanks for the inspiration!

[Bill Verburg]

These are always "fun" projects. First plan it out thoroughly, obviously you are doing that now. As you inferred the 69T is a belly button car(everyone has one, nothing special). Having lots of hp and more importantly torque in a street car is a ball. But be sure to plan and budget for a complete, balanced package. This is one of the things that separates a factory hot rod(RS) from a back yard special. Besides the engine and its auxillary/support systems you will need to plan on modifying the brakes, suspension, wheels, tires and body. I used the 76 Carrera RS 3.0 as a guide when I did my 3.6 swap. But was flexible and used what was available at a reasonable cost and yet worked as well or better than factory pieces for my application. Keeping in mind that for a street car torque(and reliability) is much more satisfying than a high strung cammy motor. Hence the relatively stock(and reliable 3.6), buying a late, low milage 3.6 was far cheaper than building a custom engine on my 3 liter block from parts. Instead of turbo brakes, I used the more modern and readily available Brembos from later 964/944 series cars(same swept area). When it was found that 8&9x16 Fuchs with street rubber were inadequate 17" Kinesis were substituted. The point is to be guided by what the factory did, but not be a slave to their implementation.

Listed in order from easiest to most difficult and coincidentally generally lowest hp/torque/cost/reliability;

• 2.7 built to RS spec but with carbs
• 2.7 built to factory RS spec
• 3.0 built to RS spec but with carbs
• 3.2 built on a 3.0 crank with carbs
• 3.2 built on a 3.0 crank with CIS
• 3.2 with carbs
• 3.2 DME
• 3.4 built on a 3.2 crank with carbs
• 3.6 with carbs
• 3.6 DME
• 3.6 Motec

Every step up the engine list will require commensurate improvements in all of the other components.

That said there appears to be a sweet spot where the 3.2 DME is(especially the more potent 930/20 ROW version), it fits nicely, doesn't require huge oil coolers, is abundant on the salvage market, is easily installed electricly and mechanicly, uses readily available(cheaper) components such as SSI headers, won't necessitate huge brakes/wheels/tires won't overly stress the 915 trans(I wouldn't recommend a 901 though). Buy a used 3.2 freshen up the top end, addressing issues such as valve guides, rod bolts etc. Install with 915, modest(factory) fender mounted cooler, update chassis to RS spec, 7&8 or 9 x16 Fuchs, you will need a new fuel pump. You too can have a car as neat as Randys.

The 3.6, while my choice, is ~ twice as expensive in every detail.

------------------
Bill Verburg
My Home Page My Pelican Gallery page My Porsche Owners Gallery Page

[CamB]

Wow guys - thanks for the responses!

Bill - I forgot your car - my apologies, but it should have been on my list - I LOVE those brakes.

I am somewhat torn between the ROW 3.2 (easy) and the charismatic engine Warren describes. Without doing the maths, I suspect the cost differential between a 3.2 plus a top end job and a 3.0 plus P&C plus rebuild starts to narrow with the "plus a top end job".

Decisions decisions!!! I have pretty much ruled out the 3.6 on the basis of cost - it looks like it would get SERIOUSLY out of hand...

I think my best plan is to keep my eye out for something (I am in New Zealand and bits are a bit thinner on the ground here, although I do know where I can get the bits Warren describes, it is just a matter of $$$$). The chief advantage of the 3.0 based engine is that as it will be rebuilt it isn't going to break. 2nd (perhaps primary?) advantage is that it will be WAY more characterful than the 3.2 DME. I like my carbs and they seem to be in good condition. I already have a new muffler. I would need heat exchangers soon (mine are, quite frankly, shagged).

But then I take on board the comment about torque and driveability in a street car.

So... a plan....

I can't go without a 911 (I did that for most of the last year 'till I bought the '69 and it sucked). So I have to finish the '75 (theoretically easy, just reassembly of trim and interior). Then I will move onto making the '69 the "911R on crack" that I want it to be.

Thanks to all for opinions - I will certainly take up the kind offers of assistance when I get to this. I thin I should do it - it is a GLORIOUS waste of money.

------------------
Cameron Baudinet
1975 911S (in bits)
1969 911T

[SeaDweller]

Another option, if you want to do it inexpensively, is to use a late model SC longblock, port the intakes, and install an early model CIS assembly. Add an early exhaust (or SSI's) and you should be at around 230HP I'm told.

I have this set-up in my car, but unfortunately didn't port the heads as part of the process. I also don't have the SSI's yet. I will say that the engine is much stronger than my stock 3.0L.

------------------
Michael
'78 911SC Euro

I have a further question regarding an engine swap in a 911T. Could the 911T be considered a sort of Boxster of its day, that is, an excellent chassis in need of more power?

In other words, would an engine change, no matter how straightforward, then necessitate an upgrade of the brakes and suspension?

Nice to have? Need to have? Opinions?